Report No. 116/18 and to order the State, as measures of reparation, those included in this report. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6. Notification of the State and the presumed victim. The submission of the case was notified to the State and the presumed victim in communications of August 27, 2019. 7. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. On October 31, 2019, Julio Casa Nina presented his brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “the pleadings and motions brief”), pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The presumed victim was in substantial agreement with the allegations made by the Commission and, in addition, indicated that the State had violated his right to work. Also, he asked that the Court order the State to adopt various measures of reparation and to reimburse certain costs and expenses and, in this regard, he identified his wife, Mercedes Maritza Salinas Mamani, and his daughters, Yessenia Mercedes Casa Salinas and Lourdes Maritza Casa Salinas, as injured parties. 8. Answering brief. On February 4, 2020, the State submitted to the Court its brief answering the submission of the case in the Merits Report of the Inter-American Commission and the pleadings and motions brief of the presumed victim (hereinafter “the answering brief”).3 In this brief, the State filed two preliminary objections and contested the alleged violations and the requested measures of reparation. 4 It asked that the Court declare the Commission’s claims without merit and find that the State was not responsible for the violations indicated in the Merits Report. 9. Observations on the preliminary objections. In briefs of March 22 and 25, 2020, the lawyer, Yessenia Mercedes Casa Salinas, representing the presumed victim (hereinafter “the representative”)5 and the Commission, respectively, presented their observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State. 10. Final written procedure. In an order of August 3, 2020, the President of the Court, in consultation with the full Court, decided that, for reasons of procedural economy and due to the situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it was not necessary to call a public hearing in this case. She therefore required that the statements admitted be provided by affidavit.6 11. Final written arguments and observations. On October 8 and 9, 2020, the Commission, the representative and the State forwarded, respectively, their final written observations and their final written arguments, together with annexes. In a communication of September 25, 2019, the State appointed the lawyer, Carlos Miguel Reaño Balarezo, as its Agent, and the lawyers, Silvana Lucía Gómez Salazar and Nilda Peralta Zecenarro, as deputy agents. 3 The State presented a “preliminary observation” and five “procedural questions,” two of which were addressed at contesting the Court’s jurisdiction as follows: (a) “Lack of jurisdiction of the IACtHR to assume the role of fourth instance,” and (b) “Observations on the undue inclusion of arguments on the presumed violation of the right to work in the pleadings and motions brief.” 4 5 This was validated in a brief of December 12, 2019, with a power of attorney granted by the presumed victim. In this order, the statements of the following persons were admitted: (a) Julio Casa Nina (presumed victim, proposed by the representative), and (b) Rita Arleny Figueroa Vásquez (witness, proposed by the State). In addition, the President ordered the incorporation “as documentary evidence, of the opinion that the expert, Perfecto Andrés Ibáñez, had provided during the processing of the case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia.” Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 3, 2020. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/casa_nina_03_08_20.pdf. 6 5